What’s needed to fix the EU’s carbon market
Recommendations for the Market Stability Reserve
and future ETS reform proposals
Carbon Market Watch Policy Briefing
July 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is the largest carbon market in the world and was originally seen as the
cornerstone of Europe’s climate policies. However, the EU ETS has suffered from a large amount of excess emissions
allowances largely caused by weak emission reduction targets and the inflow of carbon offsets. This has resulted in
a carbon price that is too low to promote low-carbon solutions.
The EU ETS suffers from credibility issues and an overhaul of the system is necessary to ensure that the EU can
play a leadership role in the run up to a global climate agreement. In the coming years, EU policymakers have the
chance to improve the design of the EU’s carbon market as the proposal to enact a market stability reserve will be
negotiated and new legislative proposals to implement the 2030 framework are expected in early 2015.
Measures to fix the problems of the EU ETS are necessary to set the European economy on a path to decarbonisation
and avoid that future climate targets can be undermined for decades to come. Without action, European industry
is at risk of falling behind in deploying low-carbon technologies compared to their competitors abroad. Moreover,
the accumulated excess allowances put the emission reductions from other European policies at risk because it is
possible to bank the unused oversupply of carbon allowances for use in the post-2020 period. This means that the
EU ETS is transforming the emissions reductions from renewable and efficiency policies into future rights to pollute.
The EU’s weak emissions targets and the huge inflow of international offsets have led to an oversupply of carbon
permits while the economic crisis reduced demand for these permits. The surplus in the EU’s carbon market amounts
to 2.1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent and this surplus is projected to increase further to 2.6 billion carbon permits
by 20201 which is more than the total tonnes of CO2 emitted in all the EU ETS sectors in a year.
Up to 2020, around 1.6 billion international offsets will be used under the EU ETS, diverting investments away from
projects that increase the competitiveness of European industry and the modernisation of Europe’s energy system.
The Commission has proposed to exclude the use of offsets after 2020, but the current use of offsets can still taint
the domestic nature of the 2030 climate target because it is possible to bank allowances between trading periods.
EU’s 2030 target to reduce domestic emissions by at least 40% could in reality only represent a 34% domestic cut
due to the surplus being banked into the post-2020 period.
An overhaul of the EU ETS based on the following recommendations is urgently needed as the EU ETS is currently
cancelling out the greenhouse gas reductions from other existing and future policies and hence does more harm
than good in the fight against climate change.
Recommendations to fix the EU’s carbon market:
2
•
Ensure that the EU ETS is designed to be in line with the 2050 objective of reducing emissions by 80-95%
by increasing the linear factor by which the ETS cap is annually reduced to at least 2.6%.
•
Protect the domestic nature of the 2030 GHG target by removing at least 1.6 billion of the excess
allowances.
•
Avoid carbon price hikes by enacting the Market Stability Reserve at the earliest possible date (2017).
•
Disallow the use of international offsets after 2020 as it delays domestic abatement efforts and has not
proven to lead to real mitigation in host countries.
•
Introduce full auctioning for all industrial sectors post-2020 to reflect the polluter-pays-principle.
•
Establish an EU climate fund to be replenished by a portion of the ETS auctioning revenues.
INTRODUCTION
The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) covers just over 40% of
the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of the EU ETS is to
promote greenhouse gas reductions in a cost-effective manner by
sending a price signal to promote technologies that stimulate the
transition to a low-carbon economy.
The EU ETS is the world’s biggest international carbon market covering more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in the 28
EU Member States, and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, as well as
intra-EU flights. The EU ETS puts a limit on the amount of greenhouse
gas emissions that big installations can emit. This cap is reduced over
time so that total emissions are reduced. Companies participating in
the system receive or buy emission allowances which they can trade
with one another: one emission allowance allows for one tonne of
CO2 to be emitted. Companies that cut their emissions more aggressively will have spare allowances to sell to other companies who did
not sufficiently cut their emissions. After each year, a company must
surrender enough allowances to cover all of its emissions, otherwise
fines are imposed2.
The EU ETS was launched in 2005 as the world’s first international carbon market. Its first phase was a trial period of three years from 2005
to 2007 in which the supply of allowances exceeded demand by a
sizeable margin. Phase two (2008 to 2012) had to deal with a massive
overcapacity of two billion allowances, or about a year’s emissions, by
the end of the phase. This surplus was banked for use in phase three
from 2013 to 20203.
On 22 January 2014, the Commission proposed the EU’s 2030 climate
and energy framework. EU leaders are expected to take political decisions on this framework in October 2014 which will be followed by a
number of legislative proposals in early 2015 to implement the 2030
climate and energy targets. These proposals are inter alia expected to
include a revision of the EU ETS to increase the linear reduction factor.
The only legislative proposal that the Commission has put forward
on 22 January 2014 is a separate structural reform of the EU ETS: the
establishment of a so-called Market Stability Reserve. This co-decision proposal which gives EU policymakers the chance to improve
the design of Europe’s carbon market in the coming months still
needs the approval of the European Parliament and the Council.
WHY THE EU ETS FAILS TO PROMOTE LOW-CARBON SOLUTIONS
The goal of the EU ETS is to put a price on carbon emissions that
is sufficiently high to promote investments in sustainable lowcarbon technologies and reward companies that produce more
efficiently. By putting a price on carbon emissions it becomes more
attractive to use renewable energy than heavily polluting coal for
example. Moreover, companies that produce more efficiently gain a
competitive advantage because they do not need to buy as many
allowances and hence have lower costs than their more polluting
competitors.
The current carbon price of around 5 euros per tonne of
CO2 is however far too low to spur investments into efficient
technologies or encourage the use of renewable energy. The low
carbon price threatens Europe’s longer term climate objective
by locking in long-lived and carbon intensive infrastructure.
The low carbon price is also partly responsible for the more
than 50 dirty coal-fired power plants which are currently under
development in the EU4. Once built, these new coal plants will
emit high amounts of CO2 for decades to come. Figure 1 shows
that the carbon price plunged from almost 30 Euros per tonne of
CO2 in 2008 to as low as 5 Euros today. The huge collapse in the
carbon price is the result of a continued imbalance between supply
of and demand for carbon permits. Main reasons for this are:
1.
Even without economic crisis, the yearly emission limits of the
system were set higher than the business-as-usual emissions,
thereby allowing companies covered by the EU ETS to even
increase their emissions6.
2.
The surplus was further exacerbated by the possibility to
use international offset credits in the EU ETS. In 2013, the
accumulated use of offsets amounted to 1.2 billion. Offsets
Figure 1: The price development of CDM offsets (CER price) and EU ETS credits (EUA price) from 2008 1
3
currently constitute more than half
of the more than two billion excess
allowances in the carbon market (see
also figure 2).
3.
EU’s emissions experienced a decrease
as the economic crisis had an impact on
the industrial production and electricity
consumption. However, it is clear that
even if economic growth returns to prerecession levels, emissions are unlikely
to climb back to high levels. From 1990
to 2011, EU’s economy grew 45% while
emissions decreased by 18.3%. 7
Figure 2: The build-up of surplus in
EU ETS up to 20205
CARBON OFFSETS
Under the EU ETS, companies can purchase up to 50% of their
emissions reduction obligations through carbon credits from
offsetting projects in developing countries. The overall limit is set at
1.6 billion offset credits for phase II and III (2008-2020)9. The price for
carbon offsets is low: they are currently selling at €0.10 (see Figure 1).
European companies have rushed to exploit this option, which
allows them to meet their current and future reductions efforts
more cheaply than by purchasing allowances under the EU ETS.
Even though companies are expected to overshoot their collective
2020 target without needing to buy any credits, companies have
incentives to purchase international offset credits because this frees
up EU carbon allowances that they can bank to meet their post-2020
reduction obligations or sell into the market at a profit.
The domestic nature of EU’s 2030 climate target is only guaranteed if
the following conditions are met:
•
International offsets cannot be used after 2020 as it delays
domestic abatement and crowds out European investments in
clean technologies.
•
At least 1.6 billion allowances are cancelled from the system
(which is equivalent to the accumulated amount of international
offsets by 2020).
•
The EU ETS directive includes safeguards that ensure linking
with other emission trading systems does not compromise EU’s
domestic climate target.
Recently, the Commission and the Parliament have proposed that
no international offsets can be
used to meet the 40% domestic
greenhouse gas reduction target
for the year 2030. However, this
welcome step towards domestic
climate action in Europe is still
threatened by the current banking
rules that allow the carry-over
of offset credits that have been
converted into EU ETS allowances.
This means that the 1.6 billion
international offsets that will have
accumulated in the system by
2020 can be used towards the 2030
reduction target. The future target
will hence fall short of 1.6 billion
tonnes of domestic action, which
implies that EU’s 40% domestic
climate target for the year 2030
could in reality only represent 34%
domestic emission reductions10,
see also figure 3.
4
Figure 3: The impact of offsets on the post-2020 domestic reduction effort 11
LINKING OF EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEMES
The EU intends to link its ETS to other emerging emissions trading systems. It is currently negotiating with Switzerland on linking the EU
ETS with the Swiss ETS for example. Such linking risks compromising the integrity of the EU ETS if the linked systems are oversupplied
or allow the use of low-quality offsets. It will furthermore undermine the domestic nature of EU’s 2030 climate target. The EU must
therefore develop clear rules and safeguards that ensure linking does not compromise EU’s domestic climate target for 2030.
BACKLOADING: ONLY A TEMPORARY FIX
The proposal of the Commission to
back-load the auctioning of 900 million
allowances during phase 3 (2013-2020)
is a temporary measure to tackle the
surplus in the short term. Backloading
reduces the auctioning amounts in
2014, 2015 and 2016 by respectively
400, 300 and 200 million allowances.
These allowances are returned to the
market in 2019 and 2020 by increasing
the auctioning amounts by 300 and 600
million allowances in these years.
Backloading does not address the size
of the structural surplus of around two
billion allowances in phase 3 and 4,
as can be seen from figure 4. Without
further measures, the imbalance
between supply of and demand
for carbon permits will continue to
exist, depressing the carbon price
substantially for at least another decade12.
Figure 4: The surplus in the EU ETS
in million allowances (the blue
columns are based on actual figures,
the green ones are estimations)13
WHY THE MARKET STABILITY RESERVE IS NOT ENOUGH
The current imbalance in the carbon market is
aggravated by the “mismatch between the supply
of emission allowances, which is fixed due to the
nature of the EU ETS as a cap-and-trade system
(and was decided in more favourable economic
circumstances) and demand for them, which is
flexible and impacted by economic cycles, fossil
fuel prices and other drivers”14.
On 22 January 2014, the European Commission
proposed to set up a Market Stability Reserve
(MSR)15 to address the imbalance and mismatch
between the supply of and demand for carbon
permits, operating from 2021 onwards. Under the
proposal, carbon allowances are automatically
put into or released from the reserve based
on predetermined rules. If the surplus is larger
than 833 million allowances in any year, 12% of
the surplus is placed in the reserve, while if the
surplus gets below 400 million, the reserve will
automatically release 100 million allowances back
to the market.
Figure 5: The carbon price development when the MSR starts operating in 2017 and the
back-loaded allowances are permanently cancelled (Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, 2014)
5
Although the Market Stability Reserve will help to create more
scarcity on EU’s carbon market in the short term and mitigate the
downward pressure on the carbon price resulting from efficiency and
renewable policies, it does not provide a structural solution for the
more than two billion overhang of carbon permits in the long term.
The Market Stability Reserve does not remove the surplus from the
carbon market as it will return the surplus allowances to the market
over time. The surplus is especially problematic because it weakens
future climate targets. Moreover, while the proposal attempts to
smoothen out the manner in which the 900 million back-loaded
allowances come back into the EU ETS16, the reserve does not stop
the 900 million back-loaded allowances from returning to an already
overflown market in 2019 and 2020.
According to Thomson Reuters PointCarbon this will result in an
unstable carbon price development, whereby the price remains
below 10 euros for the next couple years, drops to below 5 euros in
2020 and then rises very steeply up to around 50 euros by 2030, see
the grey line in figure 5.
In order to make the Market Stability Reserve an effective tool,
several improvements are needed:
• Permanently cancel excess allowances to avoid locking-in
carbon-intensive investments and a very steep carbon price
hike in the future.
•
Earlier start date. The surplus in the carbon market is
projected to increase from 2.1 billion today to around
2.6 billion allowances by 2020. This is almost equal to the
total tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions the EU ETS was
originally expected to reduce in Europe’s power stations and
factories17. The Market Stability Reserve needs to be enacted
at the earliest possible date in order to address the current
market imbalance, and start operating from 1 January 2017.
Figure 5 above shows that cancellation of excess allowances
–in combination with an earlier start date- will lead to a more
stable carbon price development compared to the Commission’s
proposal.
IMPLEMENTING THE EU’S 2030 TARGET
Implementing EU’s 2030 target requires an increase of the linear
reduction factor (LRF) by which the EU ETS cap is reduced each year.
Currently the cap is reduced each year by 1.74% so that by 2020
the emissions are 21% lower than in the year 2005. The European
Commission has indicated that to achieve a 40% climate target by
2030, the EU ETS sectors need to reduce their emissions by 43%48% compared to 2005 levels18 (table 1). The Commission’s 2030
communication settles for the lowest end of this range by proposing
to cut the cap by 2.2% per year from 2021, so that by 2030 the
emissions from fixed installations are 43% below 2005 levels. If
instead the cap is cut by 2.6% per year from 2021, the emissions from
ETS installations will be 47% below 2005 levels, which is still within
the Commission’s 43%-48% range. A linear reduction factor of 2.6%
has the additional benefit of bringing Europe on the linear trajectory
towards its long-term climate objective.
Reductions compared to 2005
2030
2050
Overall
-35 to -40%
-77 to -81%
ETS sectors
-43 to -48%
-88 to -92%
Non-ETS sectors
-24 to -36%
-66 to -71%
Table 1: Emissions in ETS and non-ETS sectors 19
In order to keep climate change below 2°C, the EU has set a long-term
objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% by 2050
compared to 1990. The EU ETS will be critical in this transition, because
the power sector can almost totally eliminate CO2 emissions by 2050
by switching to renewable energy sources. The linear reduction factor
(LRF) should be in line with the overall 2050 objective. The proposed
LRF of 2.2% is however not on the linear pathway towards the longterm climate objective of reducing emissions by 80-95% by 2050, see
also figure 6. As part
of the ETS revision
to implement the
EU’s 2030 emissions
reduction target, the
LRF therefore needs
to be changed to 2.6%
to bring the EU ETS
in line with Europe’s
overall
climate
objective.
Figure 6: The different
greenhouse gas
emissions pathways
for the EU ETS as
proposed by the
Commission and
to keep global
temperature rise
below 2°C
6
GREEN JOB LEAKAGE
As a result of the overgenerous allocation of free allowances and
the low carbon price, European companies do not receive any
price signal to produce more efficiently or invest in innovative
technologies that reduce CO2. A wide range of technological options
to reduce emissions in these carbon-intensive sectors remains
therefore unexploited. Some observers have warned of the risk of
“green job leakage” i.e. clean tech firms moving overseas because
Europe fails to set out ambitious climate change policies that would
increase the demand for their low-carbon products and solutions.
The European industry is therefore at risk of falling behind in
deploying low-carbon technologies compared to their competitors
abroad. Currently the most efficient cement production occurs in
Asia, particularly in India and China. In the steel sector, the European
installations often perform worse than the global average 20.
CARBON LEAKAGE
Carbon leakage is the situation in which, as a result of stringent climate
policies, companies move their production abroad to countries with
less ambitious climate measures to lower their production costs. This
can lead to a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the
production from European industrial sectors that is deemed to be
exposed to a significant risk of “carbon leakage” is getting protection
by receiving their allowances to emit CO2 for free.
In principle, all companies are supposed to purchase their emission
allowances under the EU ETS through auctioning. This concept has
been adopted during the revision of the ETS in the 2020 package
as the default allocation method, because it is the most transparent
method and puts into practice the polluter-pays-principle. From
2013 onwards, all power generators need to buy their CO2 allowances
at auction. In sectors other than power generation, the transition to
auctioning takes place progressively. Manufacturing industry that
is not at risk of carbon leakage received 80% of its allowances free
of charge in 2013 and this will decrease annually to 30% in 2020.
Allowances that are not allocated for free will be auctioned.
Manufacturing industries that are at risk of carbon leakage receive
100% of their emission allocation (benchmark21) for free. Currently,
164 sectors, representing more than 95% of industrial emissions, are
deemed to be at risk of carbon leakage and allocated free pollution
permits. For the period 2015-2019, the Commission proposed
adding eleven sectors to this carbon leakage list so these sectors will
also receive their pollution permits for free. In May 2014, this draft
proposal for the carbon leakage list up to 2020 has been sent to the
European Parliament and the Council for a compulsory three-month
scrutiny, during which time either party can object to the measure.
However, the parameters that are specified in the ETS directive to
identify the sectors at risk of carbon leakage are questionable: They
assume that the price to emit one ton of CO2 is 30 euros in Europe,
even though the price has been much lower (currently around 5
euros) for years. This assumption is outdated and unrealistic, which
is why almost all of industry’s emissions are covered by 100% free
pollution permits. The current parameters also ignore comparable
efforts undertaken by other global actors: China is launching seven
regional carbon markets, South Korea is introducing a cap-and-trade
system and South-Africa is implementing a carbon tax for example.
More realistic assumptions regarding price and trade conditions
would imply a drastic reduction of the number of industrial sectors
eligible for free allowances from the current 60% of sectors,
representing 95% of industrial emissions, to a mere 33% of sectors,
accounting for only 10% of emissions22. The current carbon leakage
provisions are applicable to the third trading period and therefore
end in 2020. In April 2014 the Commission launched a stakeholder
consultation process on the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions in
order to discuss the different options to address the potential risk of
carbon leakage in the future. These new carbon leakage provisions
will be part of the ETS revision to implement the 2030 package.
Recommendations how to address the risk of carbon leakage and
avoid green job leakage:
•
Reject the carbon leakage list for the 2015-2019 period that
leads to more windfall profits for industry at the expense of
taxpayers. Instead, the Commission should be requested to use
more realistic assumptions to identify sectors at risk of carbon
leakage
•
Ensure full auctioning of allowances to all industrial sectors post2020 to reward efficiency and climate-friendly investments.
•
Establish a climate fund in order to support pioneering industrial
technologies post-2020 which is replenished by a portion
of the ETS auctioning revenues. This fund could support the
development of breakthrough technologies that are necessary
to achieve deep emission reductions in steel, cement, chemical
and paper industry and help ensure the survival and the
sustainability of Europe’s manufacturing base.
CURRENT CARBON LEAKAGE RULES CAUSE WINDFALL PROFITS FOR INDUSTRY AT THE EXPENSE OF TAXPAYERS
More industries will receive free pollution permits despite a recent study ordered by the European Commission that found that
during 2005-2012 there were no occurrences of carbon leakage23 and industrial sectors received more free pollution permits than
the amount of CO2 they emitted. During 2008-2011, the steel sector was able to build up a surplus of more than 300 million CO2
excess allowances, while the cement sector received 200 million allowances more than needed24. Steel company ArcelorMittal
alone received 123 million free surplus allowances during this period with an estimated value of 1.6 billion euros (and a reported
revenue of 250 million euros)25. Windfall profits occur when companies pass through the opportunity cost of the CO2 permits to
their consumers while receiving these permits for free. During 2005-2008, carbon-intensive industries gained windfall profits in
the order of 14 billion euros26, which implies a substantial transfer of money from taxpayers to industry.
7
RECOMMENDATIONS TO FIX THE EU ETS
ADJUST THE EU ETS CAP TO THE 2050 OBJECTIVE
Implementing EU’s 2030 target requires an increase of the linear
reduction factor (LRF) by which the EU ETS cap is reduced each
year. The linear reduction factor needs to be in line with the overall
objective of keeping climate change below 2°C. The current linear
reduction factor of 1.74% does not do this, as it brings the EU ETS
to only 73% reductions by 2050 compared to 2005. As part of the
ETS revision to implement the EU’s 2030 emissions reduction target,
the LRF needs to be changed to 2.6% to allow reductions in the ETS
sector of 47% by 2030 and 96% by 2050 compared to 2005.
PERMANENTLY REMOVE 1.6 BILLION SURPLUS ALLOWANCES
Cancelling the inflow of international offsets by removing at least
1.6 billion of the excess allowances protects the domestic nature of
the 2030 GHG target. This also ensures that the carbon market does
not cancel out abatement from other European policies that reduce
emission by turning these emissions reductions into future rights to
pollute.
IMPROVE THE MARKET STABILITY RESERVE
The EU ETS needs to be revitalised so that it promotes investments in
clean technologies, rewards companies that produce more efficiently
and encourage fuel switching from polluting coal to cleaner gas
and renewables. The Market Stability Reserve aims to address the
imbalance between the supply of and demand for carbon permits
and helps to mitigate the downward pressure on the carbon price
as a result of renewable and efficiency targets, but it fall shorts of
providing a structural solution for the surplus. Bringing forward the
i.
Contact information:
Femke de Jong, Policy Officer
[email protected]
operation date of the reserve and permanently removing excess
allowances leads to a more stable carbon price development.
NO FUTURE ROLE FOR INTERNATIONAL OFFSETS
After 2020, the EU ETS needs to be designed so it promotes domestic
action and European investments in clean technologies. Allowing
companies the option of using international offsets to comply with
their reduction obligations delays the necessary transformation
to a European low-carbon economy and potentially even leads to
an increase in global emissions27. After 2020, international offsets
should hence not be allowed for use under the EU ETS.
FULL AUCTIONING TO REFLECT THE POLLUTER-PAYS-PRINCIPLE
Until 2020 industrial sectors will receive their allowances for free,
which weakens the incentive for reducing emissions and leads to a
substantial transfer of money from taxpayers to industry in the order
of billions of euros. Full auctioning of allowances to all industrial
sectors is the only way forward, since auctioning is the most
transparent allocation method, puts into practice the polluter-paysprinciple and rewards efficiency and climate-friendly investments.
ESTABLISH A CLIMATE FUND TO KEEP INVESTMENTS IN EUROPE
AND PROVIDE CLIMATE FINANCE
A climate fund needs to be established which is replenished by a
portion of the ETS auctioning revenues to support pioneering
industrial technologies, keep investments in Europe and provide
climate finance to developing countries.
EC (2014), SWD(2014)17, Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Decision concerning the
establishment of a market stability reserve (see here) Overall effort required calculated as the cumulated difference
between 2005 emission levels and yearly AEA caps.
ii.
An excess emissions penalty of 100 euros per tonne of CO2-eq.
iii.
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/reform/index_en.htm
iv.
Greenpeace (2013), Silent Killers: Why Europe must replace coal power with green energy (see here)
v.
Own figure based on PointCarbon data (2014)
vi.
Sandbag (2013), Driving toward disaster? The ETS adrift in Europe’s climate effort (see here)
vii. DG CLIMA (2014) presentation (see here)
viii. EC(2014), Impact Assessment accompanying the Communication for a 2030 climate and energy framework (see
here)
ix. EC (2014), Technical Paper: Kyoto Ambition Mechanism Report
x.
Own calculation with the assumption that 1.6 billion surplus allowances are used for compliance in the 2020-2030
period.
xi. Own calculation, assuming EU-28 emissions of 5.626 million tCO2 in 1990 (EEA technical report no 09/2014).
xii. PointCarbon Thomson Reuters (2014), Carbon Market Analyst: Digesting the EU 2030 climate and energy framework
– an update to our long-term price forecast
xiii. EC (2014), Q&A on the proposed MSR (see here)
xiv. EC (2014), SWD(2014)17, Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Decision concerning the
establishment of a market stability reserve
xv. EC(2014), COM(2014)20 (see here)
xvi. Around 421 million allowances will be withdrawn from the auctioning schedule in 2020 and released back in equal
halves in 2021 and 2022.
xvii. The EU ETS was originally expected to reduce 2.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions according to Sandbag (2013) (see
here)
xviii. EC(2014), COM(2014)15, A policy framework for climate and energy in the 2020-2030 period (see here)
xix. EC(2011), SEC(2011)288, Impact Assessment accompanying the 2050 low-carbon roadmap (see here)
xx. Climate Strategies (2014), Staying with the Leaders: Europe’s Path to a Successful Low-Carbon Economy (see here)
xxi. The benchmark is the threshold for what an installation gets for free. The starting point for setting the benchmark
values is the average performance of the 10% most efficient installations in the (sub)sector. The benchmark (ton
CO2 per ton product) is then multiplied by the average historical production during 2005-2009 to get to the amount
of free allocation the installation receives.
xxii. CE Delft (2013), Carbon leakage and the future of the EU ETS market (see here)
xxiii. Ecorys (2013), Carbon Leakage Evidence Project (see here)
xxiv. EC (2012), Impact Assessment accompanying the Backloading proposal (see here)
xxv. Sandbag (2012), Losing the lead? Europe’s flagging carbon market (see here)
xxvi. CE Delft (2010), Does the energy intensive industry obtain windfall profits through the EU ETS? (see here)
xxvii. Offsets from the Clean Development Mechanism may have delivered no more than 40% of the emissions reductions
it sold (see here)